Quotes from press conferences with our oldest (and formerly youngest) Sec. of Defense -
08/06/01 -
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, first of all I want a clarification on the Reuters' gentleman's question. You said something about the subject to be discussed. Now does that mean?
Rumsfeld: You're talking about Macedonia?
Q: Yes, of course -- troops being sucked into it, or in general?
Rumsfeld: No, I rejected his characterization at the outset, in good fun.
Q: Well, my question is, if some arrangements could change on the force structure? Could you explain that?
Rumsfeld: No, I couldn't.
Q: Second question is --
Rumsfeld: Well wait, let me answer them one at a time. It's late in the day, and I'm tired. I'm an old timer...
Q. Secretary Rumsfeld, currently the United States does not have a missile defense technology. I understand that you showed some of the ministers some of the successful missile tests, but didn't show them any of the failures. Were you able to present any evidence to suggest that the U.S. will eventually be able to field a missile defense system that works?
Rumsfeld: This is an interesting question in the sense of, what do you mean when you say "that works." Does your car work? If it doesn't work 100 percent of the time, do you want to get rid of it and walk? Not really. Is there a single weapons system in any country on the face of the earth that works 100 percent of the time? Answer, not to my knowledge.
Now I've heard the criticism of missile defense technology, that there have been some failures. I don't know a aingle advanced research and development project in the history of mankind that didn't suffer a series of failures. I mean if the Wright Brothers had stopped after the first thirty or forty attempts at getting an airplane in the air, we wouldn't have airplanes. There is no question that in any R&D activity, you end up learning something by trying it.
Now there have been some successes. There have also been a number of failures. I've used the example before, but President Eisenhower developed and urged the creation of the Corona program for an overhead satellite so we could know more about what was going on in the world by way of ballistic missile developments in the old Soviet Union. I think there were 11 straight failures. He could have stopped after any one of them. But he didn't. He went ahead and got one that worked. It ended up saving our country billions and billions of dollars because of the knowledge that came from that overhead satellite capability.
Now, did we show them any failures? They've been well splashed all over the newspapers for most of my adult lifetime. I can't imagine what we could have shown them that they didn't know. I don't think, Steve, you did, did you? Why not?
Sunday, Oct. 7:
QUESTION: Are U.S. forces on the ground in Afghanistan now? And more broadly, could you illuminate at all the so-called less visible side of this operation?
RUMSFELD: Not really. If we wanted it to be overt, we would have discussed it.
RUMSFELD: We certainly would not be using airdrops in portions of the country where we were not satisfied that it would be safe for humanitarian relations. We don't discuss operational activities.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you tell us, is there any plans to send significant numbers of...
RUMSFELD: I answered that question before you asked it.
QUESTION: Apparently, there were strikes in Kandahar and Kabul, and there's talk about the electricity system going down. Are you running the risk of being characterized as attacking the Afghan people rather than the military targets?
RUMSFELD: You know, in this world of ours, if you get up in the morning, you're running a risk of having someone lie and someone mischaracterize what it is you are doing.
Monday, Oct. 8:
QUESTION: ... Yesterday, according to your figures and General Myers' figures, you dropped 37,500 MREs -- humanitarian MREs. Is this purely humanitarian, or is it also part of a psy-ops because on the humanitarian MREs there's a picture of the American flag...?
RUMSFELD: ... It is quite true that 37,000 rations in a day do not feed millions of human beings. On the other hand, if you were one of the starving people who got one of the rations, you'd be appreciative.
Tuesday, Oct. 9:
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, as far as talking about intelligence, are we getting enough help from Pakistan, because General Musharraf -- he has fired most of his top military aides and intelligence officials, so where do we stand now? And also, what role is India playing in this campaign? And finally, if we are going to drop medicine there, do they know what kind of medicine and how to use them?
RUMSFELD: You all have gotten in the habit of asking three questions at once. And it would sure make life simpler if you didn't.
QUESTION: ... A military effort here could be decade long.... Do you think that's within the realm of possibility? And could you also preview tonight's battle plan the way you have done for us the last two days?
RUMSFELD: That was a big improvement. You went from three to two [questions].
Friday, Oct. 12:
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I know you want to hold us to one question, so I only have one question for you, and then one for General Myers.
RUMSFELD: Uh-oh. We ought to have a new rule: You can ask two questions, and then we can pick the one we want to answer.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, it's been confirmed that among the targets that was hit was the Suburban vehicle that belongs to Abdullah Omar. Was that an effort to kill him?
RUMSFELD: How is that confirmed?
QUESTION: Reliable sources, sir.
RUMSFELD: I had a feeling that was the case.
QUESTION: Secretary Myers, I mean General Myers, can you just outline any British involvement in...
RUMSFELD: Now you've given my title as well as my...
QUESTION: Well, he's bigger than you are, Mr. Secretary.
RUMSFELD: He sure is.
10/22/2001 -
Q: Is the reason for the attacks on the front lines to help the opposition take Kabul before the winter?
Rumsfeld: The reason for the air attacks on Taliban and al Qaeda forces is to destroy Taliban and al Qaeda forces.
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, you seem to be suggesting that the news-media reporting on Friday somehow jeopardized or put in jeopardy the lives of U.S. troops.
Rumsfeld: It did not. They all returned safely.
Q: And I was going to say, if that was the case, I was wondering what in particular you thought jeopardized the mission.
Rumsfeld: No, no. I just think that the idea of someone in this building providing information to the public and to the al Qaeda and to the Taliban when U.S. Special Forces re engaged in an operation is not a good idea, besides
being against -- a violation of federal criminal law.
Q: Well, which information reported on Friday prior to the operation do you think crossed the line?
Rumsfeld: I think --
Q: (Inaudible) -- question.
Rumsfeld: I think that the release by a person in the government who had access to classified information to the
effect that the United States of America was planning and was about to engage in a special operation in
Afghanistan clearly was (a) a violation of federal criminal law, and second, it was something that was totally in
disregard for the lives of the people involved in that operation. Anyone who decides that it's -- for whatever
reason, maybe they want to seem important, maybe they want to seem knowledgeable, they totally disregard the
fact that people's lives could be put in jeopardy by giving notice to the al Qaeda and the Taliban that U.S. forces
were planning to make an entry into their country. That does not seem complicated to me, and it seems so
self-evident, that it just floors me that people are willing to do that.
Q: But this was video coverage and selection of material that was controlled absolutely by the military and the government. Could you talk about why that's preferable, in your opinion, to having these decisions made by media
independent of government?
Rumsfeld: Well, in the normal conflict you have a front and you have media embedded in the U.S. troops. In the
case of the special operation, where people parachute in to a hostile environment, it obviously is not some place
that the press is going to be parachuting in with a very small -- relatively small number of American Rangers and
special forces doing that.
Q: Why is that?
Rumsfeld: Because -- why is it that the press should not be parachuting in?
Q: As opposed to a military photographer, who is still necessarily -- is still a cameraman with camera equipment.
Rumsfeld: Well, it seems -- I'm amazed at the question. I would think that the world would fully understand that it does not make sense, when a handful of American soldiers are parachuting into a hostile place and are going to be fully occupied in dealing with the opposition forces and shooting them, to the extent it's necessary, collecting intelligence, photographing things so that they know what's going on, and then being extracted -- the idea of embedding a press pool into that group seems to me to be outside of the realm of reasonableness...
Q: I mean, I do understand what you're saying, but as members of the news media, with great respect, how do we evaluate your credibility when you are answering us? Can you say to us, "I'm simply not going to answer," or are you opening the door, with great respect, to the possibility of less than truthful answers?
Rumsfeld: No, absolutely not. I've already announced that from this podium. You will receive only honest, direct answers from me, and they'll either be that I know and I'll answer you, or I don't know, or I know and I won't answer you. And that'll be it.
Q: -- without in any way impugning your promise that you're not going to not tell the truth to us, do you worry, however, that by withholding so much information and by withholding so much access, that may undermine the credibility, ultimately, of the United States government's story of what's going on?
Rumsfeld: First of all, we're not withholding so much information. I am admittedly withholding some information that I think would put American lives at risk, or would jeopardize the effort we're engaged in. But in terms of saying it's a lot, it isn't. The press in this -- this is a very open society, and the press knows, you know, almost as much as exists and almost as soon as it exists. And the idea that there is some great iceberg down there that's not known, below water, it's just not surprising that people would imagine that, since they know, by our own testimony, that here are things they do not know, and therefore they imagine the worst or the biggest or the most.
But it's just not true. The press does know the overwhelming portion.
And you will find that we will be uniformly honest from this podium -- not just Rumsfeld, but Myers and everyone else that we send down here, to the best of our knowledge.
And to the extent we make a mistake, we'll come down the next day and clean it up.
But clearly, we do not want to undermine the effort, and it strikes me that how the press handles this new conflict will also contribute to the success of it.
Interview with New York Times Editorial Board 11/14 -
Q: Do you think he (OBL) has a helicopter at his disposal?
Rumsfeld: I am pretty sure they do. We've destroyed probably three-quarters, four-fifths of them, although you don't know what you don't know, and we know we don't know. We get scraps of information that they may have some helicopters hidden under canvas, camouflage in different locations, in populated areas, in residential areas so that we wouldn't hit them if we did discover them. But how many or whether they're operable at this stage, I don't know. Most of the airstrips we've damaged to the point that it'd be tough to take anything other than a helicopter.
Q: Are our aircraft in position to force their helicopters down if they're airborne and do they have the authority to do that or to shoot them down if necessary?
Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet your life they do, good grief. They would -- if they didn't, they would be in trouble. You bet they've got the authority to shoot them down. They don't even have to say may I? This is a dangerous part of the world and there aren't any helicopters that aren't ours flying around that belong there.
Interview Nov 16 -
...Q: What makes you think we can be a success in Afghanistan by our likes when the Soviets clearly could not? They're as smart and as tough as we are.
Rumsfeld: First of all, it's fundamentally different. It's different in the sense that the United States wants nobody's real estate, we covet no one else's land, the Soviet Union was an expansionist empire that was determined to take over that country. The Afghan people know we have no interest in Afghanistan other than in stopping the terrorists and to provide humanitarian assistance to the extent we can.
Second, when the Soviet Union was trying to take over Afghanistan they had a super power called the United States of America that was opposing them. We have no super power opposing what we're trying to do because we're not trying to do anything other than stop terrorists from killing people.
Q: It seems like there's a lot more where bin Laden came from. Are we in for a protracted terrorist conflict? Are we looking at another incident year after year for the next umpteen years?
Rumsfeld: The United States has been very fortunate. We've had two big oceans and friends to the north and friends to the south. We've now recently experienced a couple of terrible terrorizing attacks.
I think the president was right when he said we have to be on a state of heightened awareness. There are a number of networks around the world, they do have money, they do have people trained, they've been training them in these Afghan training camps, and I think that it's reasonable to expect that some other things, terrorist acts will happen in various places in the world.
On the other hand, you can't defend against everything at every place at every time against every technique. What you have to do is go after them and that's what we're doing.
Q: Why do you think they dislike us so much?
Rumsfeld: I think that's nonsense that they dislike us. What they want to do is impose their will, and I read that nonsense in the press about why do they not like us. Baloney. These people are trying to take over a number of the countries, the Muslim countries in the Middle East and in other parts of the world and to achieve power. That's what they are doing. They have hijacked a religion. This isn't a religious matter. It isn't a matter that involves the United States directly except insofar as the United States and the West represent success and it's a target that they're able to focus on and focus some of their recruits on successfully to try to terrorize and frighten us from being involved in the world and it's simply not going to work. It isn't a matter of like or dislike. |
